D&D 3.x I miss 3.5 edition

[DeadlyUematsu]

That isn't an edition issue. That is a player issue. I was part of many gaming groups where this was not a problem.

Was 3rd capable of this? Obviously yes. But people can do it with any source that has enough options and the ability to mix and match. People do it in 5e, too.

It is a player issue in the immediate sense. However... it would be silly to pretend 3E, in its design and marketing, was neutral. The edition gave min-maxers enormous room to operate and the surrounding community developed a substantial optimization culture around it. So yes, people can do this in any edition with enough options and mix-and-match potential, but that misses the point. What made 3E distinct was how unusually deep the roots of out-of-context optimization became, to the point that it overshadows the system's actual selling points.

 

[Jahydin]

Going back to it, I would run a mashup of 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 (more 3.0 and PF1 than 3.5), if my WIP system wasn't finished.

Sounds cool. Generally, what would you borrow from each one?

 

[neceros]

It is a player issue in the immediate sense. However... it would be silly to pretend 3E, in its design and marketing, was neutral. The edition gave min-maxers enormous room to operate and the surrounding community developed a substantial optimization culture around it. So yes, people can do this in any edition with enough options and mix-and-match potential, but that misses the point. What made 3E distinct was how unusually deep the roots of out-of-context optimization became, to the point that it overshadows the system's actual selling points.

I agree

 

[Maxperson]

Every once in a while, I consider trying to run 3.5 again because there is a lot about it I like. Then I see a post by this and I remember that it was players that ruined 3.5.

Some players. Mine weren't like that, and I played with lots of others who weren't like that as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, I was in a similar boat. A friend was GMing a PF1 game once and I asked: "Yes, I could, but when have I ever built a character that breaks the game?" lightbulb moment - "All I want is to be reasonably effective, and build a character with a gameplay loop that's not boring when I'm a player. Which is why all of my characters are built around doing something other than direct damage."

After I’d been playing D&D a decade or so, and having tried games like Traveller & Champions, I had a mental shift in how I played.

Instead of being driven by Monte Haulism, I started trying my damnednest to fully realize my characters within the ruleset used. I wanted them to be the most “themselves” I could make them. Even if my character was combat focused, I was maximizing the character the way that character would.

For example, I had a character who was a Sorcerer descended from blue dragons, with the appropriate Draconic heritage feats. He was obsessed with his ancestry. All of his combat spells were electrically themed. After discussions with the DM, even his spells with a different elemental types became electrical, even though he didn’t have the Elemental Substitution feat. Instead, he’d learned substituted versions of them from jump. Additionally, his obsession meant he’d only be learning electrical versions of elemental attack spells going forward.

The aforementioned heritage feats included Draconic Breath- Lightning. Very handy for a beefy arcane spellcaster who also wore scale mail, despite not being proficient in it (at first), so fully subject to ASF.*

This meant that he was loaded for bear against anything vulnerable to electrical attacks. It also meant he was essentially useless against enemies that shrugged off such attacks.





* he ALSO started off using a maul (without proficiency) because of his job as a brothel bouncer.

 

[Tigris]

@Reynard

That isn't an edition issue. That is a player issue. I was part of many gaming groups where this was not a problem.

Was 3rd capable of this? Obviously yes. But people can do it with any source that has enough options and the ability to mix and match. People do it in 5e, too.

Well interclass balance in 3.5 was not as good as it could have been and and the cool truenamer was clearly designed with hesvy optimization in mind.

But of course in the end its a choice of players what to play, but its not only a player but also GM issue.


Depending on the GM players are way more likely to optimize to an extreme or not. Like if I would have to fear a GM would just steal important items from PCs I would much more likely make op characters to make sure such shenaningans could be handled.


On the other side with a nice and lenient GM I would also play a Truenamer even though it is weak because I think its a really interesting quite unique design.

 

[neceros]

Well interclass balance in 3.5 was not as good as it could have been and and the cool truenamer was clearly designed with hesvy optimization in mind.

But of course in the end its a choice of players what to play, but its not only a player but also GM issue.


Depending on the GM players are way more likely to optimize to an extreme or not. Like if I would have to fear a GM would just steal important items from PCs I would much more likely make op characters to make sure such shenaningans could be handled.


On the other side with a nice and lenient GM I would also play a Truenamer even though it is weak because I think its a really interesting quite unique design.

I thought the Truenamer was an interesting class, but not something I really enjoy. My favorite were the psychic-types. Psion and Thrallherd. And a bit of soulknife.